You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Because Greek and Phrygian were spoken in the right place geographically. According to Hamp and some other researchers, Greeks came through the Caucasus, crossed Anatolia, to the Aegean/Mediterrean. Hamp's map crosses this region. The people of this region came from the NW. Anatolian IE may have come from the east. So if Anatolian IEs came from the east, which is what Reich and Damgaard say, and Palaic is Anatolian, then the people from the NW could not have been Palaic. So who were they then? Well, Greek and Phrygian a) seem to have a connection to Paleo-Balkan languages (in the case of Phrygian, perhaps Thracian too) and b) were in the right place geographically.

What about Iranian and Indian languages? They came from the east. They were not in the region in the time in question. What about Celtic, Tocharian, Germanic?

Phrygian were related to Greeks is that your point well I guess as for the other stuff of what they were the link I posted explains it

The earliest inhabitants of Lemnos are said to have been a Thracian tribe, whom the Greeks called Sintians, "robbers". The name Lemnos is said by Hecataeus to have been applied in the form of a title to Cybele among the Thracians.[8] The worship of Cybele was characteristic of Thrace, where it had spread from Asia Minor at a very early period.

Etruscan traders arrived in lemnos circa 500Bc .....there is no association of Lemnos and etruscans ...................Etrucans are noted as an indigenous people of italy, who traded far and wide , had colonies in Corsica, Lemnos and other islands

I did not say that Greeks were the first to speak Indo-European languages. You totally misread something that I wrote. Also, I didn't bring up alphabets, you did.

Your "racial" sense of Anatolian is correct. I wasn't talking about that though--I was talking about languages and geography. You seem to be talking about Anatolian Neolithic Farmers. We aren't talking about genetics/ethnicity though--you are (which is funny, because you accused me of talking about "race" or something).

The first name that we know of for the region we now call Anatolia was "Hatti" and we call the people there "Hattians". They were not Indo-Europeans. They got conquered in some way by the Hittites, who were Indo-European, and the Hittite elite imposed their language onto the Hattian population. The Hittites took much of the native Hattian culture though, including many of their gods. Later on, the Hittite elite mixed in with and/or were replaced by Hurrians, who imposed their own religious customs onto the land. All that I said was that if the Alaca tombs were not built by Proto-Hittites, and if the early Black Sea kurgans were not built by Proto-Hittites, there must have been a previous Indo-European people in the region sometime in the late 3rd millennium. I wondered-aloud whether these people could have been Greeks, who migrated from the Yamnaya culture in Ukraine, en route to the Mediterranean. Other Indo-European languages and cultures would have already been well-established by this time. When we talk about Hittites/Luwians being the oldest, we aren't talking about 1600 BCE. We are talking about the Anatolian IE languages having split off from the main body of IE language many centuries, or even a few millennia, before that. For example, Indic and Iranic split by 1800 BCE. The Hittite Empire wasn't established until 1600 BCE.

Again, nobody is saying that Greeks spoke the first Indo-European language. I'm certainly not saying that. I think I made that very clear. I don't know how you misconstrued anything that I said with me saying that Greeks are the oldest Indo-Europeans or whatever you think I said. In fact, I repeatedly said that Anatolian (and possibly Hurro-Urartian) broke off well before Greek. The only thing I said was I a) wasn't sure which direction the Greeks migrated into the eastern Mediterranean from (whether through eastern Europe or through the Caucasus/Armenia) and b) asked what language people here thought the Minoans spoke. That's it.

You keep bringing up the Phoenician alphabet and vowels, which has nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about.

You probably speak many languages, but I suggest you work on your reading comprehension, at least as far as English goes.

Anatolian languages where non-semetic...this is established fact.
Luwian an anatolian language was from 3000bc to 600bc...a non-semetic language

Phoenician language seemed to become a semetic language as time passed....it first appeared in 1500bc in central levant...
..surprising is that they established carthage in 800bc, but chartagian is a non-semetic language

Anatolian languages where non-semetic...this is established fact.
Luwian an anatolian language was from 3000bc to 600bc...a non-semetic language

Phoenician language seemed to become a semetic language as time passed....it first appeared in 1500bc in central levant...
..surprising is that they established carthage in 800bc, but chartagian is a non-semetic language

That's absolute nonsense.

Punic was just a branch of the Canaanite language of the Phoenicians, and therefore, ergo, it was by definition a Semitic language.

For that matter, where on earth did you get that the language of the Phoenicians was not Semitic from its inception?

Is it something in the stars today? Thread after thread with rubbish content.

Don't dogmatically post incorrect facts, people. Look things up before you post if you have to.

Phrygian were related to Greeks is that your point well I guess as for the other stuff of what they were the link I posted explains it

Sorry, I got locked out of my account.

That link you posted is a watered down version of the paper this thread is based on.

It’s also the exact same information I used when I was suggesting that the Greco-Armenians came through the Caucasus and split there, and then the Greeks traveled from there to Greece/Crete.

“Mycenaeans also had some "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry, which may have come from either the north or east of Greece.”

That’s from the Dienekes article that you posted. That’s also why I was wondering if Alaca or some other ancient sites in Asia Minor might have been built by Greek-speakers on their way to the Mediterranean. If they reached Crete by 1600 BCE, it’s likely that they spent some centuries crossing from the Caucasus through Asia Minor.

That is 300 years younger than the known etruscans already in italy.........it is irrelevant and it is like saying they found latin texts in britain and so romans originate in britain

It’s not irrelevant. It suggests that there was at least contact between the two groups of people/regions. Regardless, related to Etruscan or not, Lemnian is not considered to be a Thracian, or even Indo-European, language.

Mycenaeans were not proto-Greeks. Proto-Greeks existed much earlier, during 3000-2200 BCE approximately, and they weren't settled where we would later find the Mycenaean civilization, but further north, namely on the broader Pindus mountain range, which by the time of the Mycenaean civilization was inhabited by Dorian tribes. In any case, both originate from proto-Greeks, but you cannot call Mycenaeans as proto-Greeks just because their Linear B records preserve the earliest attested form of Greek. The Mycenaean language that is recorded on the Linear B tablets that we have is clearly dialectal Greek, not proto-Greek.

Mycenaeans were not proto-Greeks. Proto-Greeks existed much earlier, during 3000-2200 BCE approximately, and they weren't settled where we would later find the Mycenaean civilization, but further north, namely on the broader Pindus mountain range, which by the time of the Mycenaean civilization was inhabited by Dorian tribes. In any case, both originate from proto-Greeks, but you cannot call Mycenaeans as proto-Greeks just because their Linear B records preserve the earliest attested form of Greek. The Mycenaean language that is recorded on the Linear B tablets that we have is clearly dialectal Greek, not proto-Greek.

I mean Proto meaning first in Europe and elsewhere and yes Mycenaean were among the first but they weren't the first Minoans were before then maybe Pontian Greeks but do you understand being Greek you have to be related to the Minoans or the Mycenaean most of the earlier Greeks like in Cyprus or Pontus would get the Greek part of their ancestry from them? If you want then tell me where do the so called ''first recorded Greeks'' like say Greek populations in the Levant ( Bronze Age ) Greek populations in Cyprus ( Bronze Age ) and Greek populations in Pontus/Anatolia ( Bronze Age EEF Steppe culture ) etc

You write, "I mean Proto meaning first in Europe and elsewhere and yes Mycenaean were among the first but they weren't the first".Proto-Greeks or later Mycenaeans for that matter were not the first in Europe. People always existed in Europe, be it in the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, or Bronze Age/IE-expansions periods. If you just refer to the IE-expansions exclusively, then we have the Yamnaya culture (which is largely seen as proto-Indo-European) and the later Catacomb culture that succeeded the Yamnayans in the West. These were in Europe, and it is believed that proto-Greeks (IE group) sprang from them, and then migrated to Greece. Last, proto-Greeks were the IE component that came and settled in northwestern Greece sometime during the early and middle 3rd millennium BCE, namely between 3000-2200 BCE. In that sense, they predated the Mycenaeans by many centuries in Greece (which is part of Europe). Mycenaeans who appeared later are essentially a mix of these proto-Greek IEs and earlier indigenous Neolithic people that were eventually assimilated.You write, "Minoans were before".The Minoan civilization pre-existed the Mycenaean civilization, in that sense they were older. Don't confuse civilizations though with genetics, linguistics, cultures, etc.. As seen with the genetic study that this thread was started from, namely "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/), what we term Mycenaeans, were essentially genetically identical to the Minoans, albeit with an additional steppe genetic component between 4-16% approximately, which is suggestive of the steppe IE expansion on the Greek peninsula. Furthermore, just for the sake of an example, before Minoans we have other cultures, with some famous being the Neolithic Sesklo and Dimini cultures (in Thessaly) among others.You write, "then maybe Pontian Greeks".The first time Pontian Greeks appear historically in the region of Pontus is in the 8th century BCE, with the establishment of Sinope (city) by Ionian Greeks from Miletus (city). These were the first Pontian Greeks. Now if go earlier, we do see mythological and archaeological elements which do suggest an early presence of Greeks on the Pontus coasts, but even that only happened during the Mycenaean period, not before.You write, "but do you understand being Greek you have to be related to the Minoans or the Mycenaean most of the earlier Greeks like in Cyprus or Pontus would get the Greek part of their ancestry from them? ".Yes, i am related to the Minoans and the Mycenaeans, as the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/) study likewise validated. Second point, the Greeks of Cyprus and again Pontus were not the earliest Greeks, but appeared relatively much later. I did mention Pontian Greeks earlier, as for the case of the Cypriot Greeks, the first Mycenaean (Greek) presence on the island is archaeologically traced to approximately 1400 BCE, centuries after Mycenaean presence began appearing in central and southern Greece.You write, "If you want then tell me where do the so called ''first recorded Greeks'' like say Greek populations in the Levant ( Bronze Age ) Greek populations in Cyprus ( Bronze Age ) and Greek populations in Pontus/Anatolia ( Bronze Age EEF Steppe culture ) etc".Where what? I don't understand the context of your question. Please be more precise and i will gladly provide my answer.

You write, "I mean Proto meaning first in Europe and elsewhere and yes Mycenaean were among the first but they weren't the first".Proto-Greeks or later Mycenaeans for that matter were not the first in Europe. People always existed in Europe, be it in the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, or Bronze Age/IE-expansions periods. If you just refer to the IE-expansions exclusively, then we have the Yamnaya culture (which is largely seen as proto-Indo-European) and the later Catacomb culture that succeeded the Yamnayans in the West. These were in Europe, and it is believed that proto-Greeks (IE group) sprang from them, and then migrated to Greece. Last, proto-Greeks were the IE component that came and settled in northwestern Greece sometime during the early and middle 3rd millennium BCE, namely between 3000-2200 BCE. In that sense, they predated the Mycenaeans by many centuries in Greece (which is part of Europe). Mycenaeans who appeared later are essentially a mix of these proto-Greek IEs and earlier indigenous Neolithic people that were eventually assimilated.You write, "Minoans were before".The Minoan civilization pre-existed the Mycenaean civilization, in that sense they were older. Don't confuse civilizations though with genetics, linguistics, cultures, etc.. As seen with the genetic study that this thread was started from, namely "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/), what we term Mycenaeans, were essentially genetically identical to the Minoans, albeit with an additional steppe genetic component between 4-16% approximately, which is suggestive of the steppe IE expansion on the Greek peninsula. Furthermore, just for the sake of an example, before Minoans we have other cultures, with some famous being the Neolithic Sesklo and Dimini cultures (in Thessaly) among others.You write, "then maybe Pontian Greeks".The first time Pontian Greeks appear historically in the region of Pontus is in the 8th century BCE, with the establishment of Sinope (city) by Ionian Greeks from Miletus (city). These were the first Pontian Greeks. Now if go earlier, we do see mythological and archaeological elements which do suggest an early presence of Greeks on the Pontus coasts, but even that only happened during the Mycenaean period, not before.You write, "but do you understand being Greek you have to be related to the Minoans or the Mycenaean most of the earlier Greeks like in Cyprus or Pontus would get the Greek part of their ancestry from them? ".Yes, i am related to the Minoans and the Mycenaeans, as the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/) study likewise validated. Second point, the Greeks of Cyprus and again Pontus were not the earliest Greeks, but appeared relatively much later. I did mention Pontian Greeks earlier, as for the case of the Cypriot Greeks, the first Mycenaean (Greek) presence on the island is archaeologically traced to approximately 1400 BCE, centuries after Mycenaean presence began appearing in central and southern Greece.You write, "If you want then tell me where do the so called ''first recorded Greeks'' like say Greek populations in the Levant ( Bronze Age ) Greek populations in Cyprus ( Bronze Age ) and Greek populations in Pontus/Anatolia ( Bronze Age EEF Steppe culture ) etc".Where what? I don't understand the context of your question. Please be more precise and i will gladly provide my answer.

What's the confusion? I named the oldest Greek populations in the world and made broad sweeping statements about how they COULD be related to either Minoan or Mycenaean Greeks. What's the confusion where is it? The first ever recorded Greeks were the Minoans after the Mycenaean if that's wrong in your opinion blame the scientists anthropologists and historians not me I am just quoting what I have read.

The other stuff like I said the first recorded Greek population globally was either in the Levant Cyprus and or Anatolia. Historians link that to them being the oldest populations to have the most connection to the ancient Greeks. If the presence in mainland Greek came before them so what? Mainland Greeks don't have the exact same dna of the ancient Greeks compared to Levantine people or Cypriots. Cypriots are probably the best example of descending from the ancient Greeks ( Hellenas ) and having hardly any admixture from anywhere else.

You write, "What's the confusion? I named the oldest Greek populations in the world and made broad sweeping statements about how they COULD be related to either Minoan or Mycenaean Greeks.".The ones you named are not the oldest Greek populations. You obviously confuse the Neolithic EEF populations that ended up in Greece and the rest of Europe from West Asia during the Neolithic.You write, "What's the confusion where is it? The first ever recorded Greeks were the Minoans after the Mycenaean if that's wrong in your opinion blame the scientists anthropologists and historians not me I am just quoting what I have read.".
The Minoans were most probably not Greeks (as in language), and we won't know for sure until their Linear A tablets which preserve their language are fully deciphered. What do the scientists, anthropologists, and historians say that contradict what i have written?You write, "The other stuff like I said the first recorded Greek population globally was either in the Levant Cyprus and or Anatolia.".Again, don't confuse the EEF (Early European Farmers) with Greeks. Greeks came later. They are genetically related to the EEF since the proto-Greeks (which they were a minority) came and assimilated much of these earlier Neolithic populations.You write, "Historians link that to them being the oldest populations to have the most connection to the ancient Greeks. If the presence in mainland Greek came before them so what? Mainland Greeks don't have the exact same dna of the ancient Greeks compared to Levantine people or Cypriots. Cypriots are probably the best example of descending from the ancient Greeks ( Hellenas ) and having hardly any admixture from anywhere else.".You are very wrong. Please go and seriously study the paper i shared in my previous comment, that presents the genetics of the Minoans, Mycenaeans, and contemporary populations. Here is also a quote from the actual paper that you obviously haven't cared to read, "finding that Mycenaeans are least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy". And here is a figure from the study presenting the genetic affinity between modern populations from the broader region, and Bronze Age populations of (a) Mycenaeans, (b) Minoans from Hagios Charalambos (Lasithi regional unit), (c) Minoans from Moni Odigitria (Heraklion regional unit), and (d) southwestern Bronze Age Anatolians.

[QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]You write, "What's the confusion? I named the oldest Greek populations in the world and made broad sweeping statements about how they COULD be related to either Minoan or Mycenaean Greeks.".The ones you named are not the oldest Greek populations. You obviously confuse the Neolithic EEF populations that ended up in Greece and the rest of Europe from West Asia during the Neolithic.[QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]

I know what a Early European farmer is. They're South East European / West Asian mixed farmers. Greeks are mainly South European. Minoan and Mycenaean are the earliest Greeks I never said ''population'' a population is a group of people in one area or country. A people relating to those people is something else. [QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]You write, "What's the confusion where is it? The first ever recorded Greeks were the Minoans after the Mycenaean if that's wrong in your opinion blame the scientists anthropologists and historians not me I am just quoting what I have read.".
The Minoans were most probably not Greeks (as in language), and we won't know for sure until their Linear A tablets which preserve their language are fully deciphered. What do the scientists, anthropologists, and historians say that contradict what i have written?[QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]

Ha ha this one is a classic did I talk about alphabet or language the mans point was about language Linear A is a type of alphabet or writing structure not ''a language'' do you even read what I put or you want to argue for the sake of arguing? [QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]You write, "The other stuff like I said the first recorded Greek population globally was either in the Levant Cyprus and or Anatolia.".Again, don't confuse the EEF (Early European Farmers) with Greeks. Greeks came later. They are genetically related to the EEF since the proto-Greeks (which they were a minority) came and assimilated much of these earlier Neolithic populations.[QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]

If you're trying to claim that the early Greeks have nothing to do with EEF good luck, Even dienekes blog claims that the earlier Greeks had more of their input than modern ones. [QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]You write, "Historians link that to them being the oldest populations to have the most connection to the ancient Greeks. If the presence in mainland Greek came before them so what? Mainland Greeks don't have the exact same dna of the ancient Greeks compared to Levantine people or Cypriots. Cypriots are probably the best example of descending from the ancient Greeks ( Hellenas ) and having hardly any admixture from anywhere else.".You are very wrong. Please go and seriously study the paper i shared in my previous comment, that presents the genetics of the Minoans, Mycenaeans, and contemporary populations. Here is also a quote from the actual paper that you obviously haven't cared to read, "finding that Mycenaeans are least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy". And here is a figure from the study presenting the genetic affinity between modern populations from the broader region, and Bronze Age populations of (a) Mycenaeans, (b) Minoans from Hagios Charalambos (Lasithi regional unit), (c) Minoans from Moni Odigitria (Heraklion regional unit), and (d) southwestern Bronze Age Anatolians.[QUOTE=Demetrios;584497]

You are very wrong. Sicilians mainland Greeks Albanians etc do not have the same ''input'' as people from the Levant/South East Europe as Cypriots Levantines and Pontian Greeks, Don't we know it too. We love being the original Mediterraneans who brought civilization and agriculture and introduced it to the Balkans etc, You descend from us my darling darling sweetheart not the other way around, indeed.

Also please stop saying ''you wrote'' I know what I wrote that's just patronising to the people you want to respond to.

You apparently learned nothing from your long absence. Opinions can differ about all these topics, but the opinions in all cases have to be supported by "fact". You are just flat out wrong about most things because you haven't done your homework. Then when you're called on it you get hostile.

Also please stop saying ''you wrote'' I know what I wrote that's just patronising to the people you want to respond to.

In the end we obviously cannot have a productive discussion, when you share unsubstantiated and dogmatic notions of another era again and again. And by the way, i am not patronizing anyone, i did the same "you wrote" thing with @tyuiopman as well, with whom i had a very civilized and fruitful discussion. I do the "you wrote" thing because i find it easier to address each point of a comment, second because i believe it is assisting the reader by having the counter-argument directly above each answer instead of having to search each point independently, and in any case using the "reply with a quote" button would take similar space.

You apparently learned nothing from your long absence. Opinions can differ about all these topics, but the opinions in all cases have to be supported by "fact". You are just flat out wrong about most things because you haven't done your homework. Then when you're called on it you get hostile.

Stop annoying good posters with nonsense or you will be gone again.

Use the time to read the PAPERS so you can contribute meaningfully.

I am not flat out wrong about anything since me coming back users either misunderstood my point or have their own opinion as to what I actually mean. I don't like hearing from people ''you are that because I have a paper explaining that people who are generally that, have the same genetics'' because everyone varies. I also don't like being told by people that's what I am saying when I know what I am saying.

Yes the early EEF farmers had collaborations with early Mediterraneans and early Greeks I know the difference between a EEF and a Greek.

In the end we obviously cannot have a productive discussion, when you share unsubstantiated and dogmatic notions of another era again and again. And by the way, i am not patronizing anyone, i did the same "you wrote" thing with @tyuiopman as well, with whom i had a very civilized and fruitful discussion. I do the "you wrote" thing because i find it easier to address each point of a comment, second because i believe it is assisting the reader by having the counter-argument directly above each answer instead of having to search each point independently, and in any case using the "reply with a quote" button would take similar space.

I have answered both you and Angela above. I don't share dogmatic views about the Mycenaean or the Minoans since there have been recent tests and blogs proving exactly who and what they are including their EEF ( early South Eastern European/Anatolian ) farmer input. The point of the thread was the genetic origins of the origins of the Mycenaean and Minoan so it's on topic and completely founded. I am only quoting what I have read on websites and blogs. If you disagree with it I suggest you take it up with them not me.

I am not flat out wrong about anything since me coming back users either misunderstood my point or have their own opinion as to what I actually mean. I don't like hearing from people ''you are that because I have a paper explaining that people who are generally that, have the same genetics'' because everyone varies. I also don't like being told by people that's what I am saying when I know what I am saying.

I have answered both you and Angela above. I don't share dogmatic views about the Mycenaean or the Minoans since there have been recent tests and blogs proving exactly who and what they are including their EEF ( early South Eastern European/Anatolian ) farmer input. The point of the thread was the genetic origins of the origins of the Mycenaean and Minoan so it's on topic and completely founded. I am only quoting what I have read on websites and blogs. If you disagree with it I suggest you take it up with them not me.

Part of the issue though is that you're referring to both ethnolinguistic groups and groups that happen to live in a certain geographic place by the same names, for example, Greeks. You're calling both the ethnolinguistic group AND the people that lived in Greece 5000 years ago "Greeks". This is confusing. Yes, Greeks have Neolithic Farmer ancestry (as do many groups), but those people were not Greeks. They pre-date the Greeks. The Minoans and Pelasgians may not have been "Greeks" (we aren't sure because, as you know, we don't know what languages they spoke), but they contributed to the Greek ethnogensis. The Mycenaeans were Greeks because we know for a fact that they spoke a dialect of the Greek language. It's difficult for people to understand what you're trying to say because you're using terms that can have a few different meanings interchangeably. No, the first Greeks were not from the Middle East. But the pre-Greek people that lived in the land known as Greece were from the Middle East, at least partially. The first Greeks (i.e. Greek-speakers) are from a Steppe-derived population. As you know, these Greek-speakers entered the land we call Greece from either the north or from the northeast and mixed with the previous inhabitants of Greece, many of whom had Neolithic Farmer ancestry.

Another example, Turks. Hittites, Luwians, Hurrians, Armenians, Greeks, etc. were/are not Turks. The land wasn't called Turkey. They didn't speak Turkish (although Armenians and Greeks did learn Turkish within the last thousand years). There was no concept of "Turk" in the region because there were no Turks there.

I don't want this to come off like I am attacking you, but you need to be very particular and consistent with your terminology.

@Demetrios, can you perhaps give any information regarding your theories about the origins of the Pontic Greeks (Pontians) of the southeastern Black Sea coast? Thank you!

Yes. By the way, i did mention this earlier as well. The first time Pontian Greeks appear historically in the region of Pontus was in the 8th century BCE, with the establishment of Sinope (city) by Ionian Greeks from Miletus (city). These were the first Pontian Greeks. Now if go earlier, we do see mythological and archaeological elements which do suggest an early presence of Greeks on the Pontus coasts, like the ones we have previously discussed, but i see this more as trading relations. The first historical and substantial effort of colonization in the region, that we know of, happened during and after the 8th century BCE. Here is a nice map to give you a perspective.

Pontian as a distinct identity begins with Mithridates I of Pontus, who seceded from the Antigonid part of the former Persian Empire and proclaimed the Graeco-Persian "Kingdom of Pontus" in 281 BCE. He is also referred to as Κτίστης/Ctistes (Builder) as in the "Builder" of Pontus. Furthermore, many of these colonies later received additional Greek migrants during the Byzantine period, and in the case of the southeastern Black Sea there was also some intermixing with the Laz people after the 13th century CE.

So do you believe those Western Black Sea cities are the earlier Greek settlements?

Is the 9th century BCE the earliest we can trace the Pontians?

Did the Urartians ever mention Greek speakers, that you are aware of?

Pontic Greeks are pretty close genetically to Armenians. To me, their accent/inflections sounds very Armenian (almost like Armenian being spoken with "the wrong" words). I know Pontic Greek is a very distinct dialect--what is it's relationship to, say, Mycenaean or Homeric Greek?

You write, "So do you believe those Western Black Sea cities are the earlier Greek settlements? Is the 9th century BCE the earliest we can trace the Pontians?".Historically yes, they are the earliest we can account for. The 8th century BCE is the earliest we can trace actual Greek establishment in the broader region of Pontus. Again, this doesn't mean Greeks didn't migrate earlier. There are elements that suggest that maybe they did, but it is also not certain.
You write, "Did the Urartians ever mention Greek speakers, that you are aware of?".Personally i am not aware of any such records.
You write, "Pontic Greeks are pretty close genetically to Armenians. To me, their accent/inflections sounds very Armenian (almost like Armenian being spoken with "the wrong" words). I know Pontic Greek is a very distinct dialect--what is it's relationship to, say, Mycenaean or Homeric Greek?".Pontian Greeks have inherited more Anatolian genes as a result of living close to the aforementioned Laz as well as Armenian people who were present in the area. But it really depends with the Pontians, they are not all the same. In my view they are somewhat intermediate between mainland Greek and Anatolian populations, and today even closer to Greek. But there are also Pontians who today live in Armenia, these could certainly be closer to Armenians. As for their dialect, it also depends. There are small variations, but Pontic Greek is generally viewed as a descendant of the Ionic branch of ancient Greek. The respective Wikipedia article does provide a lot of information on it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic_Greek. One point of note is that the Ophitic variant of Pontic Greek has been identified as the living language that is closest to Ancient Greek. The Ophitic variant was originally spoken in the Of valley, east of Trabzon. Today this very important and endangered variant is being spoken by Pontic Greek Muslims in the eastern districts of Trabzon Province and in the western İkizdere district of Rize province. It is also being spoken by Pontic Greek refugees that today live in the village of Nea Trapezounta, Pieria (Central Macedonia).
On another note, did you read about the whole-genome sequencing of 38 individuals from the Roopkund Lake (also known as Skeleton Lake), located at an altitude of 5020 meters in the Himalayas? The paper was published a week ago. What's interesting about it, is that from these 38 individuals that were tested, 14 had Greek-like ancestry. The hypotheses of these people ending up there are many, what's your take on it? Despite the fact of the Greek-like individuals being dated at approximately 1800 CE, i have my reasons to believe they must have been descendants of the Indo-Greek kingdom, which was established by Greeks long after Alexander the Great who didn't manage to push as far into India. Here is the study if you want to go over it, "Ancient DNA from the skeletons of Roopkund Lake reveals Mediterranean migrants in India" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6702210/). Keep in mind that Roopkund Lake is home to skeletons belonging to as many as 800 people (that weren't tested), hence the name Skeleton Lake.